SC Exec Meeting Minutes 2/22/10

SC Exec Meeting Minutes from 02/22/10

I. Moment of Silence

II. missing Rachel and Charles; 13 guest community members; Bi-Co

III. Business in General (storage and plenary, etc.)

· Storage: new policies stemming from flooding of storage in apartments this summer—some in administration thought we should get rid of all storage entirely; will’s sense that administration was considering severely limiting storage but housing committee has managed to mitigate the severity somewhat; this new policy has been kept under wraps mostly—will and Harrison meet with the deans every week and the deans never really mentioned this, even though they explicitly asked Smitty in September to keep them informed about storage policies; there has been a feeling for a while that up-campus storage is overcrowded with old things that have been left; meeting this Wednesday at 7pm with housing committee

· Thoughts on storage policy (exec and community members) that Will will bring up in the meeting on Wednesday:

o No storage for furniture is pretty outrageous; the fact that we must remove all of our things from storage now and can only apply for storage to put our things back in may—what do we do with things in the meantime? Some people do not have cars to drive to another storage facility

o We don’t know whether the no-furniture policy extends to lamps or mini-fridges (smaller than prohibited furniture requirement)

o What can we store in high security storage? Are there limitations to what you can store in there? A TV for instance?

o How can students be expected to pay for and transport to off-campus storage; Swat service comes to pick your stuff up

o 150 miles requirement seems arbitrary; doesn’t include NYC and this seems unfair because most students coming from the city do not have cars

o Why is this being implemented now rather than during summer break? Will thinks it’s because the admin wants to be able to go in and clean out storage over spring break and this process has to happen during the school year. They should have considered doing this over Winter Break, then

o Deadline to move out stuff is March 1st, but spring break begins March 5th, so that seems logically inconsistent

o There should have been more student input from the beginning—no input outside of housing committee; but it seems like they may be open to suggestions and revisions now

o What is the reason behind the fact that storage won’t be offered in all apartments? (some of the basements have been identified as ‘wet’ basements—duck pond to creek runs under HCA now, which is why 800 was so flooded)

o It might be nice to expand storage in the basements that are specifically dry

o One positive thing with policy: there is a significant problem of leaving things in storage up-campus for years—it will be good to clean those storage units out

o They’re going to donate all of the extra items left in up-campus storage

o There are also concerns about some of up-campus storage in addition to the apartments in regard to flooding and damp walls that damage people’s things

o You apply for storage and find out during reading week and finals—if you have to store your things off-campus, this is difficult timing

o They will be leaving in study abroad storage, but maybe we could expand study abroad storage space

o In terms of off campus storage, if we have a program that will come on campus and help transport our things then that is ok, but as it stands now students themselves can’t bring in outside storage companies—they have to go through the school, so we’re just stuck in a limbo space where we are unable to plan for storage

o Prices of Swat storage: a small fridge is $30, a small TV is $25, etc.–>to store everything through this program will cost hundreds of dollars for most students; and other storage programs are not much better

o Given other issues with dean’s office lately, communication has been a bit stilted

o Try to post some discussion points on Go and have a more structured discussion before the meeting

o It seems like a great idea to clean out the storage units at least once a year

o Also, this whole process will make people more conscientious about what they put in storage

o Do we want to come up with a serious counter-proposal?

o May want to run senior yard sale earlier because people will want to get rid of things from storage

o Why didn’t housing have more surveys about his issue? They did take some information from a survey from 2 years ago

o Housing should make a formal announcement to students who are abroad who have things that are stored in general rather than abroad storage

o What came across in the e-mailed policy was: ‘other colleges don’t provide the amount of storage we do, so we shouldn’t either’àthis is faulty reasoning; we already have storage space that most colleges don’t

o Suggested Changes: pushing the deadline back; getting rid of 25 cubic feet requirement; getting rid of the universal ban on furniture (particularly furniture that is less than 25 cubic feet); have larger, pooled storage areas between people (so that 4 people can have 100 cubic feet); there should be differentiation in treatment between people living in the apartments and people living up-campus; looking into off-campus storage;

§ Plenary: resolutions that passed were: (1) disambiguating the term ‘serious’, (2) clarifying dean’s panel procedures, (3) reviewing procedures proposal, (4) financial aid policyà presidents will meet with Emerson to present these

§ All three of the last resolutions technically failed according to the rules of the constitution because we lost quorum

§ Discussion of the 6th resolution indicated that students were interested in discussing the PE requirement; it seemed to be the most contentious resolution; didn’t seem that people wanted to pass the resolution, but did want to reform the requirement, clarification of the policy

o Because there is some interest in looking at the policy, maybe we should have Wendy come to an SC to discuss the policy; if we do go to her we should come with very specific ideas

§ There definitely seemed to be a big divide between people who value this requirement and those who think it’s useless; don’t know how this gets resolved before meeting with Wendy; maybe have an online poll?

§ Should we have an online survey about all three resolutions? Get students opinions and then submit them to Emerson?

§ Particularly the One-card access resolution; it seems to be pretty universally accepted and there is no policy currently in place that directly forbids one-card access; the resolution was already passed as Bryn Mawr; if SC wants to recommend this to Tom King and we put it into effect, then Bryn Mawr would accept that as if the resolution had passed at Plenary; but maybe since it was proposed as a Plenary resolution we should still get some student input through an online survey or something

§ SC should set up an online poll for the last 3 resolution; while results could not be viewed as a binding vote in lieu of Plenary, instead it would be as though these were SC agenda items

§ Important to talk with SGA and ask how they are interpreting the BMC plenary resolution and whether a go-ahead from Tom King would serve to equal a passing Plenary resolution

§ It seems that a lot of people are resentful of Plenary and the way it is run; if we begin using polls then people may give up on Plenary entirely

§ Instead of an online poll we could make a Go Boards post; but this method seems like it will get lost amongst the other 800 or so Plenary threads

§ Maybe we shouldn’t actively pursue the lost resolutions since we cannot account for the opinion of the whole student body; these issues are now under the purview of Plenary and so SC is no longer in a position to make any of these resolutions agenda items and make decisions about them without full consent of the student body

§ Why not just treat these three resolutions like any other failed resolutions? Bring them up at the next Plenary

§ Contact SGA and find out what they are planning to do in light of our failed Plenary

§ For resolution 6, we can invite the community to an SC meeting to discuss it and then schedule a meeting with Wendy to discuss the requirement

§ Last resolution on social justice requirement: resolution wanted to create a committee to take a serious look at what social justice means to Haverford and come up with a new program; this resolution really needs the authority of Plenary, not just being brought up as an SC initiative; should be brought up at next fall Plenary; but there is some groundwork that C12 can do to prep discussion for this resolution, etc.

§ Sam will e-mail presenter of resolution 6 saying that we would like to have an open discussion about it sometime after spring break; also contact Wendy to keep her informed

§ Will will e-mail SGA tonight about resolution 7

§ Can we request that Emerson respond to all resolutions, even the ones we didn’t vote on? Yes, the presidents can make that request

§ On this coming Wednesday C12 will be discussing ways to improve Plenary—it will be an open meeting (as always)

§ Some procedures of Plenary are in the constitution (quorum, signatures needed, date, etc.), but a lot of the things in the rules of order are left up to the discretion of the chairs, but changes can only be made before the Plenary session begins; how does one change the rules of order or the agenda order at the beginning of Plenary? The process would be the same as that of an unfriendly amendment

§ Agenda for Plenary this year was set by the VPs and approved by all of Exec; last year the order was randomized, this year the resolutions that seemed like they would have the least amount of discussion went at the end and resolutions that would modify the honor code went before the ratification of the honor code

§ In past Plenaries, when we have met the time limit we have just voted on resolution with no debate; but this year, as according to the rules of order, we lost quorum for over 30 minutes and so dissolved Plenary (and people were still walking out through the side doors at that point)

§ We had accrued 50 minutes of stoppage time (when we don’t have quorum we are not in session); change of rules of order: we were going to go for 4 hours and then we were going to vote to extend for 30 minutes; maybe this wouldn’t be a great policy for next Plenary because if we had had to vote at 3 hours to extend time and people had voted not to extend time then we would have just voted without debate on the remaining resolutions

§ We introduced a lot of incentives to stay at Plenary—we had a ton of pizza, breadsticks, raffles of WaWa gift certificatesàBMC closes all the dining halls and caters Plenary—maybe we should try that

§ Would like to have a mode of operations for Plenary written into the constitution

§ Plenary could be more streamlined; 9 agenda items is a lot; maybe be more discriminating in what can be a resolution

o Franklyn had 2 sessions to discuss resolutions before Plenary to try to encourage students to consolidate resolutions, etc. àadditionally every student has the right to present a resolution if they get the required signatures, and even resolutions that seem like they could be no-brainers, but they may not be

o Maybe there should be a distinction drawn between things we should discuss as a student body and things we need to authorize; it might be more efficient if some things that don’t need to be authorized by something like Plenary could be discussed in another venue

§ Another concern is that when resolutions pass, the administration can just not implement it

§ What are the consequences with not finishing Plenary? At this point, it will be harder to criticize the administration when we as a student body are having our own troubles being involved

§ Will would like to put together some kind of informational session for the student body that informs everyone how much student input is actually granted by administration through student participation on committees, etc.

IV. VPs’ Report:

· Upcoming committee appointments: housing committee co-heads

Council of 12 Minutes Feb. 17

Download a Nicer Version

Meeting 3

17 – February – 2010

Meeting Notes:

Party Policy Discussion

· What constitutes enforcement?

o Dorm presidents are a less serious avenue for initial discussion of problems, should be contacted about problems anyway

New Storage Policy

· Genna and Monica will work with exec

· How does this address the actual problems with storage?

Plenary Discussion

· Party Resolution

o What can one host do to change what occurs at a party? How does it make parties safer?

§ Implies that large parties need Quaker bouncers

o Quaker Bouncers cannot be contact person

o Does Lloyd around the World fall under this?

§ It should, but it isn’t clear

o “Host is accountable for everything” clause

§ mimics language in honor code, “accountable” means questionable

o What constitutes a party?

· Disambiguation of word “serious” Resolution

o Does justification below make it sound like cases shouldn’t be evaluated individually?

· Dean’s Panel Resolution

o Unfriendly amendment: honor council will not give consent for convening a Dean’s Panel, but will be notified

· Reviewing Sexual Assault Policies Resolution

o Already happening…

· Financial Aid Policies Resolution

o Will this affect the Board’s decision?

· Elimination of PE Req.

o Will this change PE options available?

o Will this make the requirements stricter?

o Not stated that requirements should be reviewed, or that we should still have classes

· OneCard revision for BMC students

o Why is this going into action regardless of whether it passes at Bryn Mawr?

· Restoration of Social Justice as a Value

SC Exec Meeting 2-15-10

SC Exec Meeting Minutes from 02/15/10

I. Moment of Silence

II. All Members Here

III. Plenary

· Discussion of cover of plenary resolution packet and plenary poster design

· 8 resolutions and ratification of honor code: party policy; disambiguating word ‘serious’ in sexual assault procedures; clarifying deans panel procedures; bringing in independent expert to review procedures; getting rid of phys-ed requirement; financial aid grant policy; social justice; Onecard access for bryn mawr students to academic buildings

· Plenary packets prepared at Haverford this year instead of Kinkos

· Discussion of opening Plenary doors at 6:30pm and enticing people to come with pizza and breadsticks; 20 boxes of pizza from Dominoes, then have more pizzas at 11pm

· New rule (that has been implemented before): After first few minutes, cannot speak unless there is someone in line to speak for the other side

· Discussion of amending the time requirements in Plenary rules of order; we can stipulate the Plenary has a 4.5 hour limit instead of a shorter one and having to continually interrupt to extend time—with this time limit we will likely only need to extend Plenary once (by 30 minutes)

· Possibility for door prizes as inducement to stay at Plenary (WaWa gift certificates–$10 each and cinnastix and cheesy bread from dominoes)

· Discussion of second staple on plenary packet; decided to stick with just one staple

· Computer labs will close; library will not

· Extend time by 2/3rds vote instead of a majority vote

IV. VPs Report:

· Will have SC Exec meetings from now on in 205B Mondays at 8pm

IV. Treasurers Report:

· Review of finalized budget—discussion of increases in some budgets and decreases in others

· $5000 more given this semester than last semester

· Leaves us with $7000 in unreserved funds

· There has been a distinct lack of club space; would like to turn squash courts into club space—put in electrical outlets, re-paint doors, etc.; would cost between 5-10 thousand dollars according to Ron Tolla’s estimates; maybe use $7000 for this purpose; OR: HCA Café will not be happening this year or summer, so Facilities has $25,000 to spend by the end of this year that used to be allotted to HCA Café; our funds do not roll-over year-to-year so we need to spend this money this year. Maybe use some of the $25,000 to renovate squash courts as club space

· Emerson would go in for half of the cost to renovate squash courts, so we could spend $4000 on squash courts and still have $21,000 to spend on cafe

· It may be possible that if we make an agreement to do something about an HCA café next year then we could petition Facilities to allow the $25,000 to roll over to next year

· Is the club space necessary? There are already a lot of spaces on campus and we could put storage spaces in Ryan Gym. However, several clubs have already contacted SC about new club space; Ryan is too big, bad acoustics, TVs are loud—not always a good place for club meetings; you must reserve space in the campus center but with the squash courts you wouldn’t have to go through room reserve

· Will continue the squash court discussion at next meeting

· Discussion of whether we should use the $7000 in unreserved funds as a cushion in case clubs or SC goes over-budget or devote it to Haverfest or save it as a surplus for next year

· SC always has an $8000 cushion aside from our enumerated budget

· Haverfest already has a budget that is 33% larger than usual

· Treasurers will meet with Haverfest committee and report back to us

· We will talk about the surplus again later in the semester

· Should we have a mid-semester budgeting process to see if any clubs could use more money?

· The week after spring break, send out a list that indicates all the clubs that have not yet spent money and ask if they still need those funds (and if not the money will be re-allotted) and additionally accept ideas of how to spend the $7000; and if no one asks for more funds then we can give the $7000 to Haverfest Committee

· Treasurers have some misgivings about this plan: if we send out an e-mail saying they have not yet spent their allotted money it may encourage them to spend money on frivolous things

· We will talk again about re-distribution of funds next week; but for now we will have mid-semester budgeting for the extra $7000

· We came to consensus on the budget

SC Exec Meeting Minutes 2-9-10

SC Exec Meeting Minutes from 02/09/10

I. Moment of Silence

II. Guests: Bi-Co and a lot of community members

III. FIG Go Post Incident

· Deans asked to have post taken down; FIG debated for quite some time and decided to take it down but has left it to discretion of SC Exec whether or not it should stay down

· FIG has agreed to honor SC’s wishes

· Harrison: Pro going up: in a spirit of free discussion and standards to which we hold ourselves as institution: censorship is wrong. Initial post and posts that followed are examples of kind of discussion that we need to have here at college and anyone asking to remove a post that does not violate FIG guidelines is uncalled for

· Dan representing FIG: received e-mail from Dean Denney asking to take post down; there was information contained in post that would allow individuals to identify alleged victim and alleged assailant, and keeping it up would be more harmful in term of violation of confidentiality than to have taken it down

· Casey Ross: why remove total post rather than editing initial post to maintain confidentiality? This would have enabled continued community dialogue without breaching confidentiality?

· Dan: there were several posts in the thread that also specifically mentioned certain information that could potentially identify the two individuals; also the whole conversation written in light of the initial post

· Andrew (though he stood outside consensus) for FIG: “it was a matter of time” before confidentiality would have been breached; greater risk the longer it was up

· Jen Zelnick: was this decision motivated ultimately by FIG’s ethical code/guidelines or was it done because of the administration. And if the latter, why is the administration not at this meeting to answer?

· Dan: Dean Denney’s e-mail made FIG realize that there was a problem; not up to us (FIG) to decide ultimately whether e-mail should be kept up or taken down—so FIG has left it up to Exec to decide

· Noah Lavine: FIG got an e-mail from Dean Denney and felt it wasn’t representative of whole student body so asked SC Exec—for part of the time the SC Co-presidents were there for FIG deliberations and both asked not to take the post down; FIG decided to wait for entire council, but it seems like initially the decision should have been made to respect the wishes of SC Co-Presidents

· Dan: have 24 hours to take down an initial post as a moderator, so needed quick decision; Andrew: however, guidelines also stipulate that removal must be requested by Honor Council or poster

· Eli: much more interested in talking about content of the post, what we should do in future rather than berating FIG

· Sam Permutt: immediate role of anyone participating in discussion now should be to suggest why it should be kept down or put back up

· Nicola: should go back up: silence that surrounds issues of sexual assault is unacceptable and we should be able to talk about these issues

· Dan J: civil court records are not widely available and so it would be very difficult to breach confidentiality

· Hilary S: this conversation is important and needs to be continued; but we’re discussing a specific incident and a specific person’s experience and this is not the way to go about things—that isn’t how things are done at Haverford (abstracts, etc)—we respect confidentiality

· Julie Seith: the post moved into a “do we think it happened” discussion and this is a very negative direction and this should not be something that is continued; in favor of taking recommendations about dealing with sexual assault that parents had given in thread and discussing those

· Maggie Bishop: important that we are all cognizant of how administration deals with sexual assault; we need to know exactly what the protocol is and need to talk to freshmen about it; we have one seminar in Marshall during customs and we need more than this; we need to have more dialogue and we need to precisely know Haverford’s protocol for dealing with sexual assault

· Harrison: tonight we need to focus on the specific issue of whether or not to bring the post back; personally think that it should be restored and should also e-mail all posters and ask them to remove identifying characteristics

· Ryan: think posts should be restored; and with respect to confidentiality: have we asked parties involved?

· Harrison: yesterday got in contact with the parents; e-mailed them asking if it was alright that it be there and they responded that they didn’t expect this to happen but we respect students rights to free speech; almost certain that we will not be able to get accused or contact the accused

· Andrew: advocate for complete restoration; however, FIG does have capability to restore the thread but take away the e-mail or restore the thread but lock it; there are some middle ground alternatives to complete restoration

· Lydia Stillwell: advocate for restoration but understand concerns of confidentiality, and would agree to a solution where post was restored but some information deleted that could violate confidentiality; Haverford’s system failed and we need to figure out why

· Will: let’s say we put post back up but change numbers, pronouns, etc.—is that enough to remove issue of confidentiality

· Rosie: like the idea of restoring the post in theory, but it is going to go in the direction of us speculating about specifics of the case; additionally, a letter from someone’s parents, even with things changed it is not equivalent to an abstract

· Julie: parents on listserv can see e-mail so doesn’t see why we students can’t

· Emily V: want to look to best interests of the survivor; having letter out there as an example of

· Jen Zelnick: important to use the right vocabulary: survivor not victim; what if we were to somehow know that the survivor is ok with having it up?

· Hilary: if survivor agreed to it, that would change some of her opinions; but this is an e-mail from the parents, not from someone who was directly involved in administrative decisions; it would be more beneficial to continue discussion about what to do in future rather than discussing this specific case

· Eli: tricky issues about who may be in the letter and speculating about trying to figure it out; this has raised a lot of discussion about this issue and how this issue is discussed; the letter is already out there—parents have it, acbs have it; but an integral part of this discussion is how the letter is being discussed; we want to protect confidentiality, but we can’t make it so that this letter is not visible and so it may be better to have it in a forum we have more control over

· Nicola: have trouble thinking that these parents would have sent the e-mail out without having their daughters consent or thinking that some students might see it; their goal is to fix this problem in future—how can they do that if you’re going to shut us all up?

· Glenn: worries in line with Nicola’s; feel like we’ve been down this road before—especially last year; we want to have discussions about the proper protocol when we have incidents like these; we have been given this opportunity for discussion—the cat is out of the bag now; though the discussion may go in directions that aren’t entirely pleasant we shouldn’t derail the discussion completely

· Hilary: for last year’s incident there was a lot of information released in the press that wasn’t released in Haverford; analogously the parents may have some info that breaches confidentiality but we may not under the Honor Code; restoring the post would continue speculation and discussion of specifics of the incident without leading to anything productive

· Mike N: advocating restoring this in full; to discuss issue at hand we need to reference issue at hand; in terms of speculation, not being able to literally reference the letter is not going to help slow this; what about justice, compassion—not just confidentiality; this is a ploy by administration to distract us from discussing very serious issues; the parents writing this letter were willing to forgo confidentiality concerns in order to get this student’s story out there; want to talk about how things are handled specifically and generally

· Franklyn: support restoration of the post, with some qualifications for confidentiality; very easy to call for justice and get out pitchforks, but this involves people’s lives and our concern for them has to come first; it’s such an unfortunate situation and we have to respect confidentiality; we don’t know all the fact; until we know that survivor wants this up, we cannot talk comfortably about the justice of this post; cannot marginalize confidentiality

· Abby/Annie :confidentiality is very important; but the parents released it, the info is out there; this conversation will just be moved to the acb’s and degenerate; much better to have this conversation out there on Go boards to people are responsible for their comments

· Takumi: a total of 65 posts have been made on new post on GO boards; total of 8 posts on acb’s were made and only 2 were constructive discussion and the rest were unfortunate comments about

· Maggie: in this conversation we need to not speculate about who this is

· Jen Z: take the word ‘serious’ out of constitution in reference to cases about rape and sexual assault; difficult to talk about concrete changes that need to be made; the new threat on GO Boards is great, but we need more specific discussion and that is why we need to restore old post

· Carolyn: original post gives only one side of one story; we don’t have accused’s response or administration’s and we cannot take this one instance as indicative of all problems of a general protocol

· Gabe: Honor Council technique: go around circle of council and saying what each member thinks

· Inez: important to have this conversation (and doesn’t believe anyone here thinks this conversation is unimportant); personally feels that, while agrees that we have only one side of conversation and we can’t take it all as fact, the information that is out there is still valuable in considering broader aspects of ways in which cases of rape and sexual assault are handled at Haverford; restore thread and taking out possible places where confidentiality might be compromised

· Julien: kidding ourselves if we think there’s much confidentiality left in this situation; parents know this situation, we can’t do anything about confidentiality at this point

· Hilary: don’t feel comfortable restoring the post for many reasons: confidentiality, one-sided story; but we need to continue this conversation; but we shouldn’t use this specific case as a way to build this conversation

· Kayla: initial reaction was outrage about the post being taken down, but more pleased now with the new thread and the direction it is going in—continue with second thread that was made

· Charles: our goal right now is to elicit some response from administration and we need something concrete that we can take to them and we have this from this letter; restore original post

· Franklyn: find a way to put up a version that we feel more comfortable with in terms of confidentiality but still gives gist of what is up there

· Dylan: legally speaking, it’s no longer privileged information; it’s important to base this conversation off of

· Will: argued for keeping it up last night; we only know one side of the story—not that we’re questioning events that happened to survivor, but we haven’t heard from the deans—though we may get a response, but in order to have a productive conversation we may need some context; keeping more things on GO is better than having them go to the ACBs; we need to hold ourselves to a high standard and in order to do that we need some context

· Harrison: more pragmatic, technical approachàthere is a good argument to be made for locking the thread; there is productive conversation going on in a new thread; we should allow original posters to edit posts themselves, but we shouldn’t let FIG or SC do it; post a link to the locked thread in the new thread, but continue the new thread

· Sam: fine with whole thread being restored; we need to trust each other as Haverford students, we can all recognize that this is only one-side—trust each other to not make assumptions and take it for what it is; trust that no one is trying to bring down the community, FIG isn’t malicious, no one is trying to make this issue go away, etc. Specifics of whether it’s locked or unlocked doesn’t matter

· Julie: full restoration of the thread and trust that community is respectful and trustworthy enough to continue discussion in positive directions; suggest community meeting with deans and administration about protocol, psych services, support groups, etc.

· Noah: disturbed about a discussion of productivity of thread if restored, but in many ways this is not an appropriate consideration; if people say things that are offensive we have avenues to resolve this, but until then we should give people the benefit of the doubt

· Takumi: if the council so chooses to restore all or part of the thread, it’s also a possibility to merge old and new threads

· Julia M: in terms of confidentiality, the family did want to use their example to illustrate how the administration deals with these cases, important that we have this reference

· Gabe: what advantage to locking the thread?

· Harrison: not having two convos side-by-side, but since we can merge them, then we should choose that option

· SC would like to restore the thread and merge it with the old thread.

· Should we edit original post?

· FIG can provide text of each individual post and who posted it and then we can e-mail those people and ask if they want to edit their post

· Gabe: doesn’t think FIG or Exec are in a position to edit these post, but ok with original posters editing the post

· But Original Poster did not write the letter—so how to make that more confidential?

· Julie: probably the parents put a lot of thought and energy into how they presented the letter and the language they used and that shouldn’t be changed; it’s up to individuals to edit posts if they feel it’s inappropriate; neither SC nor HC nor FIG have authority to edit the posts

· Would it be okay if some individuals e-mailed the posters and asked them to maybe change pronouns or the dollar amount of the lawsuit

· Erica: in asking people to edit their own posts an important thing to realize is that these posters are Haverford students and we need to trust them to be responsible for what they say, and if they are violating our trust or not respecting confidentiality, then a confrontation can arise—but this is a separate issue; we trust the community to be responsible for their words

· Hilary: issues of confidentiality are not always the most common-sense things; it may not be intuitive which aspects ought to be taken out

· Emily V: Honor Council could post a general account of how to respect confidentiality

· Harrison: put it back up, merge the threads, have HC Co-Chairs look at it, and then e-mail the various posters

· Alyssa: can we put up guidelines for confidentiality on the post

· Andrew T: visible first and then e-mail community members to edit posts

· Harrison: yes

· Julie: what is benefit in editing pronouns or number when it’s on ACBs anyway?

· Sydney: principle of confidentiality

· SC will ask FIG to put post back up; Co-Chairs will look at thread and make suggestions for protecting confidentiality; SC Co-Secretaries will e-mail posters with these suggestions; posters can edit or not

Council of 12 Notes

Download a Nicer Version

Redirecting...

Student Council Exec Meeting Minutes 2-3-10

SC Exec Meeting Minutes from 02/03/10

I. Moment of Silence

II. All Members Here

III. General Stuff

· Will is going to a meeting tonight to discuss dorm and apartment storage space

· Elections almost complete

· Our endowment is about 340 million range, down from around 500 million; we’re okay at this point, but if it had gone down below 300 million range, it would have seriously affected the way the college is run; good to have a school-wide discussion about all of this; Will and Harrison have spoken to President Emerson and Dick Winn, among others; the reason it has gone down is largely because we pulled heavily out of the stock market when the crisis hit, not because of mismanagement; students largely haven’t been effected by this, it’s been mostly faculty and staff who have taken pay-cuts, etc.

· Open Plenary meeting tomorrow 8:30pm in Ryan

IV. VPs Report:

· One of the people on OMA Search Committee had to resign; meets wed. or thurs. between 4-6; Rachel will take up position

· Katie Drooyan ’11 appointed to CSSP; Anna Brockway ’12 and Ryan Fackler ’11 appointed to AAEC

· Speakers Committee (3 openings) and Clearness Committee will be appointed this weekend

IV. Treasurers Report:

· Budgeting grievances forthcoming; likely to have them all day Saturday, Sunday, with the budget decided by Monday night

· Next week’s Exec meeting will discuss final approval of the budget

· Treasurers met with Jason McGraw last week and have discovered that there were some missing expenses from bookstore, telephones, etc.—things that were charged to the SC Account and were not forwarded to treasurers, but were just taken out of SC Account by business office over the summer

SC Exec Meeting Minutes 1-24-10

SC Exec Meeting Minutes from 01/24/10

I. Moment of Silence

II. Julie

III. General Stuff

· Improvements to the DC! Pizza bar is coming. John Francone would prefer the path to tray-less-ness to consist of a plenary resolution. Council agrees.

· There will be an open forum led by architects to discuss new dorm building.

· Housing Committee is beginning to consider rearranging and getting rid of some storage spaces; SC will look into this; also, look into a system of better storage management (particularly in terms of things being stored by students who are on dean’s leave or who have graduated)

IV. VPs Report:

· More appointments to fit in tomorrow night; we are going to re-run alumni association executive committee appointment next week; we have an appointments schedule which runs from now until early April; trying to run at least two per weekend. Next week: Alumni Association Executive Committee and CSSP

· Julie was going to replace Nora on EPC, but she ended up having a conflict and so Charles will replace Nora until she returns in the fall

IV. Treasurers Report:

· Budgeting schedule will be sent out tonight; application due by 29th (Friday); will have meeting in DC explaining what budgeting is; want to begin interviews as soon as possible; hopefully able to finish budgeting within next two weeks; must submit both paper and electronic budget applications;

V. Officers Reports:

· Arts: Met with Professor Lee; meeting with Fern about James House basement; looking into being able to check out works of art from the library

· OMA just had MLK series, trying to fix up the library in the BCC—was cleaned by facilities over break, now looking for a computer to put there

Under Construction

Hey everyone,

This webpage will be under construction for the duration of winter break and a lot of the links/forms actually lead nowhere. If you need anything from SC please send us an actual e-mail until we get things up and running.

Thanks!
Harrison

SC Joint Meeting Minutes 12/6/09

SC Joint Meeting Minutes from 12/06/09

I. Moment of Silence

II. Guests: Bi-Co rep Robin Riskin, EPC Nora Graham and Robert Thorstad reps, Admin Advisory Committee (sets college budget) reps Ryan Fackler and Sarina Schwartz

III. Updates from EPC and AAC

EPC: mostly working on the writing program—will hopefully be complete by end of this year; responding to concerns from faculty about students who aren’t prepared to write senior thesis—not enough concentration on writing during sophomore and junior years; also want to improve frosh writing sem; main solution for frosh writing program: hiring adjunct professors to teach the seminars, add writing tutors to the writing center and have adjunct profs be a part of the writing center—also, at some point, would like to expand the mission of the writing center; EPC met with Writing Fellows; EPC does not want to mandate any new writing requirements for sophomores and juniors, but we want to offer more courses that are explicitly focused on writing—“W” courses; also hope individual departments will encourage their majors to take writing-focused courses

Some future considerations: adding departmental minors; what to do about the social justice requirement—would love to get a proposal about which direction to take in regard to the social justice requirement

AAC: has been focused on trying to cut 3 to 9 million dollars from what used to be an 80 million dollar budget—ended up reducing by about 6 million; since economy hasn’t continued to crash, we are no longer in free-fall, though we’re still not on great footing; AAC will soon be talking about institutional expansion; would like to raise annual giving and would like to hire new staff for the next capital campaign; AAC is not considering cutting financial aid or certain student services like the Health Center; under discussion is how much tuition will be raised next year; last year, in an effort to stay afloat we cut back on faculty retirement packages, etc. and now we’d like to get back to where we were; last year, the school instituted a voluntary retirement program: the school gave very generous packages to those who would like to take the option to retire early—this practice will not continue this year; there were some people who left last year not due to the early retirement program

IV. Discussion of Fall Plenary Resolutions:

· Having C12 really helps appointments; appointments committee almost always reaches quorum now

· Franklyn agreed to update our constitution with the approved changes from Plenary

· Religious Holidays Resolution: faculty are asking that anyone who wants to make a request for an exemption approach them at the beginning of the semester; faculty may add an addendum to syllabus suggesting that students come talk to them if they see that an assignment is due on a religious holiday; maybe we could expand the request time to include any two-weeks before the assignment is due; can also always appeal to your dean; ultimately, it would be great to have profs consider religious holidays in the creation of the syllabus

· Resolution 7—SC is looking into getting signatures of students to present to local election board; it’s possibly illegal where our current polling place is because polling place is supposed to be on campus (unless there’s no viable space on campus), so we’re trying to move the polling place

· Café resolution: Will spoke with Dick Wynn, presented what the space might be—how it could not feel like a basement; one thing administration is really worried about the Coop; Will tried to emphasize that, while the café might be the main draw, it could be a 24-hour student space; Admin is still concerned that there is not enough of a specific plan for the structure of the café, and that previous attempts to renovate HCA space into student space have failed; admin wants more discussion before moving forward; overall, they approve of the idea of a café/social space in HCA but they want more discussion—a conditional acceptance (basically go through the entire Plenary process again)

o How can SC develop a more concrete idea of an HCA café? Will start with preliminary thoughts on the café’s structure and then SC can build on, refine those. Or: make another committee. Or: create an SC working group; also, we do still have to address the conflict with the Coop

V. Treasurers Report:

· It’s actually going to be $30 an entry for Lloyd lights

VI. Trays

Bi-Co ran a survey; a good number of students approve going tray-less

VII. VP’s Report

· Emma Richards appointed Honor Council Librarian

SC Exec Meeting Minutes 12-2-09

SC Exec Meeting Minutes from 12/02/09

I. Moment of Silence

II. Guests: FUCS and Bi-Co and JSAAPP

III. VPs Report:

· New Dorm update: there will be a meeting with architect tomorrow (Thursday Dec 3rd)—he’s designing the Barnes Foundation space

II. Discussion with FUCs

· SC funds a lot of large and largely-funded organizations: Lunt Café, FAB, speakers, Quaker Bouncers, FUCs, SECs, etc; how is feedback with the community involved? Speakers Committee hasn’t done a lot of work reaching out to the community asking what they want;

· FUCs feels that there has been communication with the community—via personal encounters, facebook messages, have used students’ connections (i.e. Casey Ross, Howard Brown, Jane Holloway, Ellen Freeman) to book bands; FUCs books shows for fall semester during summer, for spring semester before the semester begins—so there are some logistical/time issues with requests that come in during the semester; FUCS feels this can be alleviated by opening up more dialogue with the community, but wants to underscore the fact that they are very receptive to communication that they do engage in; another issue is that often suggestions come in for bands that are beyond our price range; the nature of booking is such that one can e-mail an exorbitant number of bands and get very little response; FUCs feels that at issue is that HFord community doesn’t have an accurate understanding of how FUCs works, how bands are booked, and they plan on reaching out to the community in order to make the booking process more transparent; FUCs has over the past few years developed a solid reputation with booking agencies;

· FUCs particularly selects members for diversity in music taste

· How can communication with FUCs become more accessible to the community? Can open a thread on the GO boards; they already have a Facebook group; members of FUCs put their names on facebook events and their contact information is on the Facebook group—there are existing avenues for communication; they will be having a more formal discussion (congress) inviting all members of the community to discuss who we want for Haverfest

· FUCs goal is to become more accessible, to educate the community about the booking process, and create avenues for requests; because the organization feels that a lot of the community is misinformed about what FUCs does and how they do this; and communicative process is a two-way street and it does seem that a good amount of people (and people who do not personally know members of FUCs) are contacting FUCs

· Ryan suggested offering a survey to the campus

· FUCs has prioritized having a large number of shows (which therefore have to be relatively inexpensive—around $1500) instead of just having two or three more expensive (ostensibly “bigger name”) shows; in this way, FUCs hopes that they can cater to a larger variety of tastes

· Maybe put this question to the community: more variety or a few big shows? FUCs concern is that, not only do we get more variety with a larger number of shows, but there are also more opportunities opened up for opening bands

· Even if they split the budget up between three or four shows, it would likely still not be enough money (around $4000) to attract well-known bands; additionally, a more expensive show does not necessarily ensure a better show

· SC values how hard FUCs has been working—the sheer number of bands that have played this year demonstrates this; the concern is just for greater transparency in the process of booking bands

· When FUCs appoints new members, musical taste is one of a number of factors—and certainly not the most important—that they weigh; more important is experience, responsibility, etc. FUCs would really like to dismiss the rumor that they are a group who believes themselves to be superior in musical taste, etc.

· FUCs in process of looking for new members; would the board consider having a meeting with the community announcing what FUCs is, what it does, etc. before applications are due? Customs annually has a meeting of this nature before applications are due

· FUCs does have flyers with a significant amount of information; but they are definitely willing to consider having this meeting

· Will: SC has heard of a number of issues about highschool students at FUCs shows, paying an entrance fee, etc.; but this very well may be a rumor

o FUCS: At the beginning of the year and at an event last year, there was an issue; but as the semester has gone on, this has ceased to be an issue; FUCs members have only signed in up to three guests; the extra non-Haverford people who the Quaker Bouncers see are either guests of the band, or people who Haverford students sign in—often Haverford students who are not familiar with those outside people; FUCs explicitly tells the bands that these are not open shows

o It may be helpful to reiterate that students ought not to sign in people they do not know; but ultimately, FUCs cannot eject people from the basement—particularly people who have already been signed in

· People have this false conception of FUCs has a business due to the former practice of charging outside people for admittance to concerts; the reason for this was not because the members are making a profit nor was it to buy beer; bands brought people who FUCs could not vouch for—so FUCs charged them in order to get some more security about their behavior—to help ensure that the outside people would respect our venue; FUCs (as per SC and JSAAPP guidelines) has stopped this practice, and so they no longer have this security measure; one way they’re considering remedying this is altering the wording of the contract to say something along the lines of “you’re responsible for all of your guests, and if they damage the venue, you will not be paid”

· To be clear also: FUCs members often lose money because of “rider” requests from bands—which includes requests for food, etc.; musicians expect the host to be hospitable in these ways and FUCs wants to prevent a situation in which the band is upset and doesn’t perform well, etc.; FUCs does not get budgeting for these situations

o This year, we had to cut $125,000 from overall budgeting; SC wishes they could provide everything but they can’t

· As long as FUCs does not provide alcohol, can they go back to charging the band’s guests? Charging system is only for people who cannot be vouched for—guests of students would not be charged; SC Treasurers: it may be a better solution to change the wording of the contracts

o However, SC budgeting will definitely take into consideration costs of rider requests that FUCs members have to incur

· The alcohol that floats around Lunt Basement is not provided by FUCs and FUCs is not interested in having kegs

· Some concerns SC has been hearing:

o in Facebook events, there are often highschool people invited; in 07-08 (before any of these issues began), a large constituency of highschoolers who came to shows friended Sam Kaplan and now they are able to look through his profile and find these events; FUCs feels this problem is being addressed—in most recent show there was no off-campus or high school presence; the high school interest in and perception of Lunt as a space where they can drink and behave recklessly has declined

o There could be a perception that, if FUCs is doing its own appointments, then it may become a kind of ‘old boys’ club where they only admit the old faces, etc; the people on FUCs are friends, but the friendships usually develop after working with each other; in any case, FUCs feels that they are not insulated by these friendships—they are not only talking to each other, they are in communication with a wide variety of members of the community

o Appointments Committee runs such that the members of AC ultimately decide who to appoint, but they have former members or co-heads of the committees they select for sit in on the interviews and their opinions are given great weight

o FUCs feels very invested in their enterprise, and they are concerned about their input not being given enough weight in determining who is on the board if SC does appointments; a significant concern is that, in order for FUCs to function well, all board members must work well together and must really understand the constraints that are faced in booking bands; additionally, it seems like there is a very negative perception of FUCs this year

o How is FAB appointed? FAB and Jason jointly appoint; Speakers Committee is appointed by SC; should we re-consider how FAB is appointed?

· FUCs is committed to holding all members accountable; occasionally individual members may make certain contentious decisions, but these decisions have been confronted and overall FUCs feels that each member is committed and any contentious situations have been dealt with

· SC is considering starting budgeting process earlier for all boards with larger budgets

· Dylan and Franklyn will be present for FUCs appointments